Tehachapi, BC

[GaryHinshaw]

Stockton? Nah, that would be too much coincidence.

Stanford on Thu, Richmond on Fri, and Sonora over the weekend.  Will be passing near Stockton on Fri and Mon - when will you be there?

Gary,  thats looking really good there,  can't wait to see some landforms start taking shape between the tracks and backdrop.

Mike

Me too - it's coming!  To do list:
* Finish upper deck main line (2 turnouts, 4 tortoises, and a shoo-fly to temporarily close the loop).
* Install fall protection along tracks, where necessary.
Then, in sections:
* Ballast main line
* Install backdrop
* Add landform webbing

-gfh

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Stanford on Thu, Richmond on Fri, and Sonora over the weekend.  Will be passing near Stockton on Fri and Mon - when will you be there?

No, no, no: the World's Greatest Hobby show was LAST weekend in San Mateo (10 min. from Stanford) 

[C855B]

Stanford on Thu, Richmond on Fri, and Sonora over the weekend.  Will be passing near Stockton on Fri and Mon - when will you be there?

So close. Sacramento on Fri., Stockton late Fri.-Sat.-Sun., Concord Sun. a.m., San Mateo late Sun.-Tues. Longstanding (35 years) annual railfan meet and monster slide show in Stockton is what prompted me to ask. That, and that the show is basically all Western roads, all the time. Started out as typical gonzo 1970s California railfan stuff and morphed into big, high-quality productions. (Winterail for those whose curiosity is now piqued.)

[GaryHinshaw]

No, no, no: the World's Greatest Hobby show was LAST weekend in San Mateo (10 min. from Stanford) 

That fact did not escape my notice!

So close. Sacramento on Fri., Stockton late Fri.-Sat.-Sun..... (Winterail for those whose curiosity is now piqued.)

Too bad!  Ahh, the aptly named Winterail, now that spring is in full swing in CA.   

[C855B]

... Ahh, the aptly named Winterail, now that spring is in full swing in CA.   

In our defense, Your Honor...

It started as a February event, mostly to chase the gray-sky doldrums away. IIRC it moved to early- to mid-March because of recurring conflicts with venue schedules, the venue being important due to various licensing issues. The irony has not gone unnoticed.

[Smike]

GARY!
That is #$%^ hotnesss.... Why even bother to ask for a vote? 

The only part that will require a bit of care is when the scenery goes in to make it bleed and blend into the backdrop image. That I believe is key to making this look great at more than head on eye level viewing angles. The larger the range of believable angles with a backdrop the harder.

[GaryHinshaw]

Not too much railroad progress to report.  I have been making strides on finishing up the upper deck mainline, including a few more turnouts and tortoises, but I still haven't installed the temporary shoo-fly that will close the upper deck.  (It's so close though...)

One milestone that I'm happy to have behind me is a new roof over Tehachapi BC:



While this created quite a bit of debris in the crawl space over the ceiling, there was no visible impact on the interior layout space, so that's a relief.

-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

I also have a bit more progress to report on back-drops, and I once again solicit feedback.  You may recall that one of the tricky elements on the Loop shelf was how the south end of the line reaches south staging by sneaking around the edge of the shelf, as you can see in this old shot, where the double track on the far right and back is headed down to a staging helix:



This track has nothing to do with the main scene on the Loop shelf, and I had always intended to hide it with a backdrop layer.  I have now mocked up a version of this in an effort to check:

1. Do I have remotely suitable photo stock in my collection to produce decent backdrops?
2. Does the concept work at all, or is it too obviously a ruse?
3. Can the track be simultaneously hidden while remaining relatively accessible?

Now you be the judge: first here is an overview of the mock-up from near ceiling level:





Bear in mind that these are quick prints done on my home printer, taped together, and put up with crude clamps and thumb tacks so I could adjust the elements easily.  Nothing here is permanent.  The following two shots show how the hidden track appears from the entrance:



and from above, along the back:



Here is a slightly closer shot from eye level showing the effect of the layers, and highlighting some trouble spots in the red ovals:



Some obvious improvements that are needed are:

1. Lighten the rear layer a little bit, and extend it a little further along the side wall, and taper it gradually below the front layer.
2. (Right oval) Add a transition between the two segments of the front layer and improve the color balance between the two segments.
3. (Left oval) Remove the bit of distant mountains in the circled portion.  (This will probably be blocked by the 3-d scenery anyway.)
4. Extend the low desert backdrop further along the side wall, behind the fron layer.

Other suggestions welcome, especially if you think this doesn't work for one reason or another.  Finally, here is a before & after of the right side of the shelf:





In this case at least, I think the photo works pretty well.  For reference, the actual scene looks like this:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=115825&nseq=86

The highway is very close to the line at this point, but the photos I used were taken about a mile further up the road, where I could get better photo angles, and where the highway was a bit more distant.  I think it works ok to have the highway a bit further away and less obvious here.  Also, while the prints are rather blurry when viewed up close, they look pretty good from normal viewing distance and hopefully they'll be kind to my 3-d scenery...

-gfh

[Scottl]

Gary, great to see a new roof on the things- need to keep that rain out!

Backdrops are a challenge when the viewing angle changes radically.  For me, the last photograph is very effective and convincing, much like your previous efforts with the high dessert scene.  Despite being very close to the track it looks excellent.  Blending it should refine it even more, but I think you are probably OK on the photo stock front (unless you "need" another field trip,  ).

The challenge for me is the long view that exposes the ruse.  I'm not sure what you can do here, short of putting in some kind of barrier in the room to keep people from standing in that position.  A bulge in the benchwork to force the view, perhaps? I'm not sure you have the space, but a bulge with some topography might hide it from the view at the cement plant.  Alternatively, perhaps build up some topography at the point where the hidden track comes out to hide the thin edge of the backdrop.  A low hill might do it, and seems mostly prototypical based on what I know of the area.

Glad to see you back at it. 

[mark dance]

Hi Gary:  the backdrops look great.

In terms of dealing with the transition to staging on the right side, what about gently curving two lower backdrops to the front fascia?  The wall would still have the higher, distant/faded mountains on them behind the two curving ones.



Sorry for the drawing quality...I had to use Powerpoint as I am travelling.

md

[mark.hinds]

Gary,

Some of those shots look quite effective.   

In case you find any of them useful, here are some additional thoughts.  Over the years of layout stagnation, I did actually put some thought and experiment into my future backdrops. 

1)   Back in the 1980s, MR published a number of articles on NEB&W backdrop scenery, typified by “Summit scenery on the NEB&W” from the March 1984 issue.  This was the first time I had heard of multi-layered backdrops.  Their layers, from the sky, through distant hills, trees, and finally 2-D flat trees, appear to all be within a depth of 1” or so.  In contrast, you seem to be experimenting with layers separated by 6” or more.  My current thinking is that the compact NEB&W approach yields a more consistent appearance at all angles, perhaps because it minimizes angular positioning and directional lighting artifacts.  I would define a single backdrop plane for the entire scene, and keep all layers next to it.  Your post implies that you are using the large separation for access purposes.  Why not do the closer backdrop as a forced-perspective 3-D scenery element, and either access the hidden track from below, or make the scenery element a lift-out? 

On the other hand, perhaps as you experiment further, you will discover additional advantages to the separated approach. 

2)   Check that the distant hills, relative to your 3-D scenery, have the correct color relationship, matching your reference photos.  In my first sample image below, note that the (very) distant hills are faded and blue-shifted.  In the second sample image, the (less) distant hills are only slightly lighter and more faded than the closer ones (the foreground may be in shadow).  BTW, if you can find the above MR article, note how they seem to tint the upper edge of the hills layer with traces of the sky color. 





3)   I think your photographs are quite suitable raw material for backdrops, should you chose the photo-backdrop route.  There is a huge amount you can do to modify them in Photoshop, including shifting color tint for more distant objects, and doctoring to fit better next to another printout, as I’m sure you are aware.

4)   Do you plan to go the translucent sky backdrop route that I mentioned in my layout thread, which would lend itself to backlighting the sky at a later point?  Or do you plan to leave that sort of thing for future enhancements?  In either case, a separate sky layer makes such a future enhancement a lot easier to do, as you would leave the hill layers in place. 

MH

[mark.hinds]

If you went with the “single backdrop plane” suggestion (all backdrop layers within 1” of each other) you might want to position this assembly just in front of the “south end staging access” track along the right rear wall.  You already have your forward backdrop in this location.  You would then merge the rear backdrop on the left, with the forward backdrop on the right, with the rear backdrop on the far right, for a single alignment.  You would need some sort of scenic blocking element to hide where the track along the right wall penetrates the backdrop (trees, building, hills, or whatever is most prototypical). 

MH

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the feedback guys -- always appreciated!  As with most of my posts here, this is very much a 'thinking out loud' exercise, which is to me what makes this an Engineering thread, rather than a show-and-tell one.  (In the same vein, please excuse the mediocre photo quality - I know it's hard to see past the temporary work and the clutter of the benchwork & wiring.) 

Here's a quick follow-up to some of the comments raised.  First a ceiling-level view of the two layers to show the setup a bit more clearly:



(Note that the final scenes will be professionally printed and mounted on styrene panels - hopefully not the hack job you see here.  I will also make an effort to match the backdrop hue to the dominant 3-d scenery hue.)   The separation between the layers is about 3" and is mainly noticeable on the side, as has been noted.   I'll consider altering the planes of separation, but I do value the easy access this scheme affords.  For what it's worth,  I'm ok with the idea of the ruse (model railroads are theater sets after all), but it's useful to hear people's reactions to it.

Regarding the transition on the right side, I originally had in mind a bit that tapers down to the scenery level as shown by the (newly-added) manila extension in the following shot:



The planned scenery level on both sides of the divider is indicated by the red line.  I like this better than the abrupt edge I had, but I'll have to rework the panorama to make this work with the photos.  I'm also considering Mark D's suggestion, though I don't want to obstruct the main scene on the Loop shelf by curving the divider too much.  (Mark D, I'm also not clear what you were thinking with the desert backdrop: a hole in the divider where it crosses the tracks?  I also didn't follow what you meant by the bit in your drawing marked "cutting".)

Here is what the "chute" entrance into staging would look like:



I would plan to add more desert photos to the manila sections visible here.  Further comments welcome.

-gfh

P.S. Mark H. - I had no planned any translucent sky boards, but it is a neat idea to consider!

[mark dance]

Sorry for being unclear Gary. This may have to wait until I am home.

I was thinking that the two tracks beside the wall would pass through a hole in the low backdrop which curves out into the room right to left
 
And by "cutting " I mean a cut through the earth rising on both sides to hide the trains as they pass through the hole in the backdrop to hide the hole. I think the track is high enough in this location for this isn't it?

I have three similar places on the C&W btw...BN Line at South Nelson to Salmo staging, Troup Jn into East staging, Cascade into west staging and Castlegar into South staging...only Cascade is complete so I am interested in what you come up with.

Md

[Scottl]

I think I get what Mark is suggesting.  It is along the lines of what I thought might help, putting some topography at the end of the inner backdrop to make the edge less apparent.